Hall of Famer

I had already looked at this (I read The Phoblographer regularily - and of course, Chris linked to it) and wasn't that impressed by most of the blurb (including the image samples); after all, this is just the - stated - high-class execution of the simplest possible lens; f/8 hyperfocal isn't fantastic at all, it just means that I'd get a fixed focus lens that's not very useful for many genres of on-the-go photography. The gestalt and form factor are really, really nice, though; and the fact that it's a Tessar type lens (my favourite design of all times) is also very appealing for me. But all in all, I think it's pretty expensive for what you get - even if its optical quality is better than the heavily modded "instagrammatic" images are able to prove.

In all honesty, my impression is that this thing is geared towards the hipster in-crowd, not photographers. That said, I'd be all over it if it were just a little brighter and had a means of focusing closer, maybe down to one meter. As it is, I'd probably not find a real use for it except for traveling as compact as possible; *anyone* could to hyperfocal with *any* lens, though most of them would probably be bigger. But then again, Voigtländer offer a couple of lenses that can do a lot(!) more than this Goerz 35mm - for instance, there's the tiny, yet beautifully made Ultron 40mm II SL for Nikon F (they seem to have discontinued the Canon EF version, however):

I own that lens, it's a great performer - and hardly any bigger; yes, it's more expensive, but you also get a lot more for your money!

The same goes for mirrorless, including M mount - Voigtländer's Nokton Classic lenses are bright, small and beautiful, and while they have what is called "character" (really meaning visible optical limitations when not stopped down considerably), they're extremely well made and work fine (I own the 35mm):

I know that all of these lenses are more expensive, but they are also a lot more useful. In short, considering what's already available, I don't think this lens is really worth my money. Besides, I already helped fund this:

Veteran

I think I am in agreement Matt, when I got the a7R II I ordered a Zeiss Sonnar 35mm f2.8 E-Mount lens which seems very good and gets rave reviews however because it has no aperture ring using hyper-focal focusing is not possible, a feature that I used regularly on my Leica M Summicron 35mm asph but I was advised by the dealer that I bought the Sony body from that the Summicron 35mm asph would not align with the sensor of the Sony and he suggested me keeping my 50mm Summicron and trading in my 35mm

Hall of Famer

I think (but I may be mistaken) that there are actually lists available for hyperfocal distances, so far, I haven't bothered to look ... Anyhow, I hope you have fun with the well received Sony Zeiss 35mm; I'm not sure I'd have traded in the 35mm 'cron, though, but that's probably me (I'm really bad a trading in things I've grown to like - even if I have access to "better" alternatives). Again, have fun - I think you'll find the Zeiss very usable, and since it's said to AF fairly quickly, I think you won't miss hyperfocal distances that much. Hyperfocal was/is a crutch - a very useful one, but still a crutch.

Veteran

I think (but I may be mistaken) that there are actually lists available for hyperfocal distances, so far, I haven't bothered to look ... Anyhow, I hope you have fun with the well received Sony Zeiss 35mm; I'm not sure I'd have traded in the 35mm 'cron, though, but that's probably me (I'm really bad a trading in things I've grown to like - even if I have access to "better" alternatives). Again, have fun - I think you'll find the Zeiss very usable, and since it's said to AF fairly quickly, I think you won't miss hyperfocal distances that much. Hyperfocal was/is a crutch - a very useful one, but still a crutch.

You may be right, and, yes it was quite a wrench to trade the 35 Summicron in as it was my most used lens but when I discussed it with the dealer he said that it was not compatible with the Sony Alpha camera. Something to do with the distance between the rear lens distance and the sensor, and I guess he had no reason to give me false information. I just said that as part of the deal I needed to trade in one of my M6's and either my 35 or 50 Summicron.

Hall of Famer

You may be right, and, yes it was quite a wrench to trade the 35 Summicron in as it was my most used lens but when I discussed it with the dealer he said that it was not compatible with the Sony Alpha camera. Something to do with the distance between the rear lens distance and the sensor, and I guess he had no reason to give me false information. I just said that as part of the deal I needed to trade in one of my M6's and either my 35 or 50 Summicron.

I see - makes sense. The Sony Zeiss is no slouch - you'll be fine, I think. And you still have your 50mm 'cron - wonderful lens. I own it as well; though because of my perference for Tessar type lenses, I use the collapsible Elmar f/2.8 a bit more often. But it's one of the two benchmark 50mm lenses I own, and it's the one that has more character (the other one is the hulking Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art - great lens, but definitely not recommended as a walk-around companion; the 50mm Summicron, on the other hand, fits that slots exceedingly well).

Veteran

I see - makes sense. The Sony Zeiss is no slouch - you'll be fine, I think. And you still have your 50mm 'cron - wonderful lens. I own it as well; though because of my perference for Tessar type lenses, I use the collapsible Elmar f/2.8 a bit more often. But it's one of the two benchmark 50mm lenses I own, and it's the one that has more character (the other one is the hulking Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art - great lens, but definitely not recommended as a walk-around companion; the 50mm Summicron, on the other hand, fits that slots exceedingly well).

Hall of Famer

Reviving an old thread with some news (and BOT): I had mixed results with the Lomo'Instand Wide, but I think I've tamed it - it's still a limited device, but I've cracked shooting in daylight, at least for B&W.

Here's the thing: The shutter tops out at 1/250s at f/22 - which, combined with ISO 800 film, means blown out highlights according to the Sunny 16 rule, and that was exactly the problem with the Lomo'Instant Wide (all automatic models, actually). The other problem with the Lomo'Instant Wide (LIW) and the original Lomo'Instant (LI) is that their plastic lenses simply aren't sharp - they're not extremely soft, but noticeably so - the Lomo'Instant Automat Glass (LIAG) is a much better perfomer. Anyhow, (slight) softness combined with blown out highlights really means no usable image - no detail, no contrast, no texture. So I was pretty disappointed with many of the images coming from the LIW, and frankly, even the otherwise impressive LIAG can be a pain to shoot in good light. B&W was especially frustrating - at infinity, the LIW just didn't produce good images in daylight, period.

What to do? Shooting people with the built-in flash on B&W works well enough, but it's not at all my thing ...

After trying a couple of ND filters, I was not convinced I could make it work - after all, using an ND filter on a fully automatic camera that doesn't do TTL metering seems counter-intuitive. However, Sunny 16 tells you that you just need an ND2 - but since I didn't own one, I tried using ND4 and ND8 filters and EV+1; but ND8 was too much (by far) whereas ND4 was only marginally more usable. Could one stop make such a lot of difference? I was not sure - and didn't try at the time.

But now I have, and while it's certainly not the most reliable solution, shooting the ND2 on the LIW (and on the LIAG) does allow for sufficently contrasty and well defined images in bright light; the Instax B&W film itself doesn't offer a lot of range, and shadows lose detail extremely quickly, but the results can look quite dramatic. Lomography it remains (at least on the LIW - the LIAG is a notch above that if things work out), but now I can produce 7 or 8 predictably usable images out of 10 when shooting outside - that's about double the rate I had reached before. Here's a quick and dirty scan with Google PhotoScan of one of today's shots, otherwise unedited (I just cut off the stuff the app added and downsized the file to something more akin to the original). I'll do proper scans of most of the ND2 shots soon (though I think there'll be some more curation involved ...).

Bottom line: Never fiddle, go straight for the most promising solution. The ND2 was the obvious choice - and I would have lost less money if I had spent a bit more in the first place.

M.

N.B. I found out the the Instax B&W film doesn't like cold temperatures; it works best above 15 degrees Celsius. Below 10 degrees, you risk getting severe colour casts/blobs.

Yes, the colour casts do change with temperature, though I'd say that above 15C, it pretty much evens out. The temperature dependency was a strange thing to find, given that the Instax colour film doesn't show that to any comparable degree.

On the other hand, it's much, much worse with Polaroid Original films - they *don't work at all* if it's cold, and they need higher temperatures than 10C to perform at all. The new colour film can produce gorgeous results - but only if it's warm enough. I haven't found the lower boundary yet, either - I think I more or less lost two whole films experimenting. Needless to say, I won't load up the OneStep2 during winter from now on.